Tuesday, October 9, 2012

Utilitarianism is defined as: "The
creed which accepts as the foundation of morals, Utility, or the Greatest
Happiness Principle, holds that actions are right in proportion as they tend to
promote happiness, wrong as they tend to produce the reverse of happiness. By
happiness is intended pleasure, and the absence of pain; by unhappiness, pain,
and the privation of pleasure ". (Chapter 2 - What Utilitarianism Is, The
Principle of Utility, Utilitarianism by John Stuart Mill)

It has been proven throughout the
material timeline where societies have attempted the above observation but
later fall short of maintaining such a society, at times, defined as utopian.
In an earlier chapter, the concept was introduced: 'Roman Material Theory'
which presents the introduction of the over-all material unhappiness of society
which was initiated by the imposition of cheap or "slave" labor. The
reader would first have to follow through in understanding the Greatest
Happiness Principle presented by the previous renown scholar of the 1800's:

" actions are right in
proportion as they tend to promote happiness, wrong as they tend to produce the
reverse of happiness."(Chapter 2 - What Utilitarianism Is, The Principle
of Utility, Utilitarianism by John Stuart Mill)

The first issue which must be
presented is the description of the U.S. Constitution as a Utilitarian
document. The Declaration of Independence of July 4th, 1776 states:

" We hold these truths to be
self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their
Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and
the pursuit of Happiness. "

The previous example existed in A.D.
313 when the Edict of Milan, co-authored by Emperor Constantine, allowed
freedom of worship to the Christian population. The Edict of Milan is an early
form of utilitarianism in interaction with Christianity. However, this
interaction in the mankind’s material timeline, exposes the fallacy of John's
"prophecy" or prediction. The Reductio ad Absurdum supposition is
given:

1.The Book of Revelation mentioned the
physical return of Jesus (Revelation 1:7, The Gospel of John 19:34, and
Zechariah 12:10).

6.The predictions by John and other
New Testament writers are proven false through mankind’s material history.

The evidence below is a copy from a
previous chapter.

The
Edict of Milan:

“ When we, Constantine and Licinius,
emperors, had an interview at Milan, and conferred together with respect to the
good and security of the commonweal, it seemed to us that, amongst those things
that are profitable to mankind in general, the reverence paid to the Divinity
merited our first and chief attention, and that it was proper that the
Christians and all others should have liberty to follow that mode of religion
which to each of them appeared best; so that that God, who is seated in
heaven, might be benign and propitious to us, and to every one under our
government. And therefore we judged it a salutary measure, and one highly
consonant to right reason, that no man should be denied leave of attaching
himself to the rites of the Christians, or to whatever other religion his mind
directed him, that thus the supreme Divinity, to whose worship we freely devote
ourselves, might continue to vouchsafe His favour and beneficence to us.
And accordingly we give you to know that, without regard to any provisos in our
former orders to you concerning the Christians, all who choose that religion
are to be permitted, freely and absolutely, to remain in it, and not to be
disturbed any ways, or molested. And we thought fit to be thus special in
the things committed to your charge, that you might understand that the
indulgence which we have granted in matters of religion to the Christians is
ample and unconditional; and perceive at the same time that the open and free
exercise of their respective religions is granted to all others, as well as to
the Christians. For it befits the
well-ordered state and the tranquillity of our times that each individual be
allowed, according to his own choice, to worship the Divinity; and we mean not
to derogate aught from the honour due to any religion or its votaries.
Moreover, with respect to the Christians, we formerly gave certain orders
concerning the places appropriated for their religious assemblies; but now we
will that all persons who have purchased such places, either from our exchequer
or from any one else, do restore them to the Christians, without money demanded
or price claimed, and that this be performed peremptorily and unambiguously;
and we will also, that they who have obtained any right to such places by form
of gift do forthwith restore them to the Christians: reserving always to such
persons, who have either purchased for a price, or gratuitously acquired them,
to make application to the judge of the district, if they look on themselves as
entitled to any equivalent from our beneficence.

All those places are, by your
intervention, to be immediately restored to the Christians. And because it
appears that, besides the places appropriated to religious worship, the
Christians did possess other places, which belonged not to individuals, but to
their society in general, that is, to their churches, we comprehend all such
within the regulation aforesaid, and we will that you cause them all to be
restored to the society or churches, and that without hesitation or
controversy: Provided always, that the persons making restitution without a
price paid shall be at liberty to seek indemnification from our bounty. In
furthering all which things for the behoof of the Christians, you are to use
your utmost diligence, to the end that our orders be speedily obeyed, and our gracious
purpose in securing the public tranquillity promoted. So shall that divine
favour which, in affairs of the mightiest importance, we have already
experienced, continue to give success to us, and in our successes make the
commonweal happy. And that the tenor of this our gracious ordinance may be made
known unto all, we will that you cause it by your authority to be published
everywhere.”

The above is also expressed in the
1st Amendment of the U.S. Constitution: " Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of
religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the
freedom of speech,..."

The concept is also expressed in
Article VI(6) of the U.S. Constitution: " ...but no religious Test shall ever be required as a Qualification to any
Office or public Trust under the United States."Even if the religious errors have been corrected by a secular methodology the previous method also corrects other secular doctrines. Mathematics seems to be a fair judge in the material timeline and is partly an ingredient to unbiased empirical data. There is one individual which composes the previous expression and his name is Francis Hutcheson. Francis Hutcheson died in 1746 and influenced David Hume and Adam Smith. The importance of the date, 1746, is important to note knowing that the said philosopher influenced Adam Smith and his writings. Francis Hutcheson is credited for the saying: The Greatest Happiness for the Greatest Number . The previous observation or saying is from the mathematical models researched by Francis Hutcheson and through his observation of the material timeline of humanity concluded with the said observation. Reading through the last treatise by Adam Smith, the so-called founder of classical capitalism, the pages of Smith's celebrated treatise the residue of utilitarianism could be seen. David Hume takes the negation of a creator and Adam Smith embracing the materialistic ethos of such a creed.

Most importantly, Francis Hutcheson's writings were before the initiation of the American and French revolutions which brought about change in the political character of the said nations. Adam Smith also composed his well-known treatise in 1776 at the time when the American revolution was commencing. In Smith's treatise, the idea of revolting against the British crown over excessive taxation was brought forward by the author because the taxation was used for war industry while neglecting the health and wellfare of the populace. The previous is an example of positive utilitarianism and collective utilitarianism - the very themes adapted from the previous writings of Francis Hutcheson.

The previous paragraph explains the meaning and application of utilitarianism. The meaning is not individualistic application of such a creed but rather its collective nature expressed in the previous calculation: The Greatest Happiness for the Greatest Number. The very idea of individualistic satisfaction is not the intention of the previous scholars and writers. Jeremy Bentham, who lived between 1748-1832, explains the moral theory of utilitarianism by refuting attacks against individualistic utilitarianism or psychological hedonism. Psychological Hedonism was expressed by the Roman philosopher, Epicurus, who defined such a theory as an action which is right if and only if it maximizes pleasure and minimizes pain. The very notion of the "pig satisfaction" or simply individualistic satisfaction were both refuted throughout both the writings of Epicurus and later Jeremy Bentham. Hence, there is a difference between individualistic utilitarianism and individualistic satisfaction or "pig satisfaction". The previous is an expression of the Moral Principle of Utility which refutes the notion of such "pig satisfaction" individualism. Pleasure may not be sufficient for happiness but it is a crucial ingredient for happiness and tranquility in society. The meaning of the term - pleasure - is actually describing tranquility within society rather than its "grossest form". Hence, the importance of the mention of the U.S. Constitution as an utilitarian document.

Jeremy Bentham did not conjure up the mathematical expression: The Greatest Happiness for the Greatest Number. Francis Hutcheson derive the phrase first through his observation of collective utilitarianism with his proposed mathematical models in his treatise - An inquiry concerning the original of our Ideas of virtue or Moral Good, section 3, part 8 :

" . In comparing the moral Qualitys of Actions, in order to regulate our Election among various Actions propos'd, or to find which of them has the greatest moral Excellency, we are led by our moral Sense of Virtue to judge thus; that in equal Degrees of Happiness, expected to proceed from the Action, the Virtue is in proportion to the Number of Persons to whom the Happiness shall extend; (and here the Dignity, or moral Importance of Persons, may compensate Numbers) and in equal Numbers, the Virtue is as the Quantity of the Happiness, or natural Good; or that the Virtue is in a compound Ratio of the Quantity of Good, and Number of Enjoyers. In the same manner, the moral Evil, or Vice, is as the Degree of Misery, and Number of Sufferers; so that, that Action is best, which procures the greatest Happiness for the greatest Numbers; and that, worst, which, in like manner, occasions Misery. "

For the above evidence is proof of positive and collective utilitarianism expressed by Francis Hutcheson years before Jeremy Bentham's own words expressing the same phrase. Francis Hutcheson, it is fair to suggest, not only influence David Hume and Adam Smith but also Jeremy Bentham. Jeremy Bentham expresses the previous mathematical expression and even proposes mathematical models within his 1776 treatise titled: A Fragment on Government
" Correspondent to discovery and improvement in the natural world, is reformation in the moral; if that which seems a common notion be, indeed, a true one, that in the moral world there no longer remains any matter for discovery. Perhaps, however, this may not be the case: perhaps among such observations as would be best calculated to serve as grounds for reformation, are some which, being observations of matters of fact hitherto either incompletely noticed, or not at all would, when produced, appear capable of bearing the name of discoveries: with so little method and precision have the consequences of this fundamental axiom, it is the greatest happiness of the greatest number that is the measure of right and wrong, been as yet developed. " ( The preface of A Fragment on Government )

For the above reference is presenting that the origin of the phrase is a mathematical construct deriving from Francis Hutcheson which later was borrowed by Jeremy Bentham. In the treatise of A Fragment on Government , Jeremy Bentham employs mathematical expressions with words and phrases to conduct an observation and conclusion concerning the British government. In chapter three of his 1776 treatise he presents a proposition theory in chapter three - British Constitution section 20 Proposition Theorem, in which he proposed a false construct concerning the perfection of the British government based on the observation of others. Or is it that Jeremy Bentham presented the fallacy of any government being perfect? despite that many governments are based on the collective utilitarian ethic. The perfectness of any government is surely a subjective condition rather than its perceived objective principle.

The fallacy of perfectness concerning any and all collective utilitarian society has been presented by Jeremy Bentham through the Francis Hutcheson's original mathematical observation. The imperfectness, deducted and concluded by these two past scholars, of any said government creates the obvious conclusion: the existence throughout the ages of negative and positive collective utilitarian societies. The default notion is to suggest all nations and tribes from beginning of time were either negative or positive collective utilitarian manifestations. Nevertheless, collective utilitarian manifestations.

Throughout the years of the human timeline, the human race experiences the rise of negative collective counsciousness which results in the formation of negative collective utilitarian manifestations. During these phases of society, there arises one or several brave individuals called moral agents. These positive moral agents are change agents in the midst of negative collective counsciousness deriving from flawed beliefs and false social constructs. It may be the case, that these flawed social constructs started out and derived from moral codes. Yet, these very moral codes evolved into obselete moral codes or outdated social codes.

Thursday, October 4, 2012

After decoding the various
symbols within the Book of Revelation with sufficient evidence throughout, it
presents the dilemma that a creator is not the author of such a document.
Rather, the author being very human and conscious of the possibility of failure
concerning the nascent Christian community composed a document expressing his fears.
Therefore, the Book of Revelation is a motivational document addressed to the
oppressed early Christian community facing the brute force of the Roman
Empire's onslaught while competing with various early Jewish messianic
movements.

The exposure of
such a document presents the obvious conclusion that this document was intended
to be addressed and fulfilled during the era of the early Christian community.
The chronology of events are shown throughout its decoding and concludes with
the controversial verdict of a false human prediction. In other words, a clear
false prophecy. The prediction given by an all-too-human author gives the
conclusion that an error exists within the book of Revelation and the rest of
the New Testament canon. Finally, concluding within the text, the error of the
supposed return of a superhuman Jesus.

The two main
examples, which are apparent clashing contradictions, are given: John's
Millennialism model versus Paul's Dispensationalism model. The two models
previously stated are expressed within and throughout the New Testament canon.
Furthermore, the New Testament canon is complimented away by the last book
added historically by Augustine of Hippo: The book of Revelation.

The human errors given above
ensures the validity of the Divine Command Theory at least to the Abrahamic
faiths. A theory which states that if a creator, the source of divine command,
supposedly gives a command then this 'command' is universal and valid for all
times and for all societies. The inventor of the term: 'Divine Command Theory'
is James Rachels. Rachels states in his treatise - God and Moral Autonomy
(1997):

1. First, we might mean that right conduct is right
because God commands it. For example, according to Exodus 20:16, God commands
us to be truthful. On this option, the reason we should be truthful is simply
that God requires it. Apart from the divine command, truth telling is neither
good nor bad. It is God’s command that makes truthfulness right.

Divine Command Theory is
actually a model or theory which exposes the flaw in 'religion' because it
forces the question of where 'good', 'goodness' or 'morality' originates? In
other words, does it originate from 'religion' or the absence of it? The
proposal is that 'good', goodness' or 'morality' in general derives from the
absence of religion. Therefore, our moral actions are either innate or acquired.

The Theorem is produced in
relation to the Problem of Evil:

1) Good produces
Good.

2) Good produces Evil.

3) Evil produces Good.

4) Evil produces Evil.

These four
categories could be deducted by reading through and summarizing the theories
contained in the books of Immanuel Kant. The German philosopher did not invent
such categories but observed these inherit categories through the actions of
human beings. He developed the imperatives which already existed throughout
human history. Many social examples or settings he gave, throughout his books,
has shown that the theorem above is valid. Kant and later philosophers like
James Rachels, noted the problem of the autonomy of a moral agent and the
general problem of anthropomorphism among humanity. Point 1) is Kant's
categorical imperative, points 2) the negation of the hypothetical imperative and 3) the hypothetical imperative, and point
4) is the negation of the categorical imperative.

The previous four categories could be best illustrated by the interaction of three agents: The acting agent, reacting agents and the projected agent. The acting agent is the sole individual who peforms an act or actions into the physical world. The role of the reacting agents, or other individuals within society, is to interpret such actions as either good or evil. In other words, the acting agent and the reacting agents interact in the physical world or material realm. The interaction, the source of the categorical imperative, will result in a good or evil act. The last agent, the projected agent, exists in the immaterial realm or the mind of the acting agent or the sole individual. The projected agent is a product of the mind of the acting agent even if the projected agent is proven to be based on truth or facts. Nevertheless, some projected agents are proven to also be based on false assumptions and absurdities.

For example, the acting agent performs a good act which is universally accepted as good by the reacting agents which is rule #1. Next, the acting agent performs an act which seems good but resulted in an evil result. In other words, some good effort was put into the act which was neutralized by an evil result, which is rule #2. The evil act of the acting agent resulted in a good result which is rule #3. Finally, the evil act of an acting agent resulted in an evil result which is rule #4.

The evidence of
this within the Book of Revelation is given in Revelation 6:8 where God
commands and allows an 'evil' action to occur resulting in an eventual 'good'
result. The previous is classified as (#3) among the four categories mentioned
previously. However, this is an example of a metaphysical example, or symbolic
and non-physical evidence copying the verse in Ezekiel 9:4-7. If we are to
believe that the book of Revelation is a 'divine' text then God has proven to
be both 'good' and 'evil' which is also expressed in the book of Isaiah 45:7
where God or the creator admits of producing or creating 'evil'. James Rachels
above presented a verse from Exodus 20:16 which is an example that the action,
of truth telling, could be done without a 'divine' command and it could be
proven to be both 'good' and 'evil' therefore validating an earlier observation
by Immanuel Kant.

Kant's observation is deontological or an inner description
of actions by individuals. In the previous case, the christian's projected agent is the acting agent as told by John while the characters within the Book of Revelation are the reacting agents. To further understand the illustration of the four given imperatives, the first result was derived from the acting agent then the "production" is interpreted by the reacting agents in nature. For instance, "evil produces good" which is an example of Kant's hypothetical imperative. Both imperatives by Kant, categorical and hypothetical, resulted in a good condition. While both negations of the two previous imperatives resulted in an evil condition.

Nevertheless, the obvious
historical answer is that these commands derive from earlier documents from
ancient Egypt where these commands were common and attributed to the various
gods among the ancient "pagan" Egyptians. So, the question arises which god
or gods deserves to be worshipped? The various sources negate each other
therefore proving that these commands do not derive from a divine source but
rather through natural biological altruism. In other words, deriving through
the absence of religion. It also means that the above verses are from the human
imagination and natural desires which is a reflection of the cultural
environment. In other words, an example of relative or subjective morality.

The defining result is that the
book of Revelation was proven flawed by showing contradictions in the competing
doctrines through Paul's earlier Dispensationalism and John's later Millennialism.

These are both
doctrines which are contradictory, as was proven in an earlier chapter, because
these two are false expectations. Therefore, a clear false prediction of Jesus'
physical return. Most importantly, both claim to have received commands from a
divine source: Paul's Dispensationalism (Jesus' return BEFORE the Temple's
destruction and desecration of the Temple copying the language noted in the
book of Daniel) was explained away and covered by the later doctrine of John's
Millennialism (Jesus' return AFTER the A.D.70 focus event because of the Roman
destruction of the Temple in the book of Revelation). If John's millennialism
was proven flawed then Paul's Dispensationalism is also flawed and therefore
both are in error. Furthermore; it proves clearly, without a doubt, the two of
the so-called Abrahamic faiths (Christianity and Islam) are clearly false.
Furthermore, the earlier or previous faith (Judaism) is also flawed because of
borrowing from an earlier belief system (ancient Egypt's various belief
systems). In other words, all three previous so-called Abrahamic belief systems
have problems and flaws. If this is the case then the so-called Abrahamic
faiths are proven fallible. Nevertheless, the stated previous evidence does not
prove nor disprove the absence of a neutral creator in the universe (this is
discussed in a previous chapter). The author, James Rachel, in several of his
books gives plenty of evidence against the other non-Abrahamic faiths in
general. His books present the idea that 'religion' in general is flawed and
that morality derives from a non-divine source. However, all the previous
evidence given does not mean that we as humans remove actions of 'goodness' and
acts of kindness from our lives. The evidence given proves that kindness or
'goodness' is universal without any doubts.

Therefore, the
creation of 'religion' is a political by-product enforced by tribal elites to
preserve the local tribal allegiances. The reason is because the rational agent
creates the categorical imperative. Or rather, the rational agent redefines the social moral codes by reapplying the catgorical imperative. The main question is where does the
rational agent derive the imperative? It obviously derives from biological
evolution. The scholars to mention in this field are Charles Darwin and Peter
Singer. The latter being a scholar who has introduced the idea, through
historical observation, of an 'expanding (tribal) circle' where the concerns of
the local tribe expands into the realm and inclusion of other external tribes.
The previous a well-known researcher and scholar to have presented 'the theory
of evolution' which today could be proven without a doubt.

Through social
evolution, the human race has expanded the tribal circle to include other
tribes which is noted by Peter Singer. The previous example was noted by Paul
himself in the Book of Romans (Romans Chapter eleven) where this social
evolutionary example was applied "religiously" but evidently resulted
in a material benefit of the message and expansion of the initial local tribe.
There is also evidence that Paul and John borrowed, not only religious
expressions from the Old Testament canon, and also from the Greek philosophy
disciplines and Caesar's enactments to expand roman citizenship, i.e. expanding
the tribal circle. The previous example is not evidence of a creator but rather
evidence of social human evolution to expand and include external tribes
outside its immediate circle. Therefore, the writings within the New Testament
canon or texts are actually the result of natural social evolution rather than
a 'divine command'. The previous controversial conclusion results in the fact
that the religion of Christianity is part of the timeline of the dialectical
material history of the human race. Furthermore, if it is part of the
dialectical history of the human race then the Abrahamic religions and/or most
religions are prone to be replaced and discarded by thinking sentient beings.

The above evidence
presented explains the flaw of the so-called Abrahamic faiths. Therefore; Paul
introduced, intentionally, the possible concept of the 'universal tribe' with
its complimentary component of a particular cultural subjective morality.
Nevertheless, what Paul has done is to express the eventual dialectical material
revolution of the Judeo-Christian community or society through an immaterial
expression and language through the tools of a specified 'religion'. However,
Paul's expression throughout the New Testament makes it possible also to
eventually discard Christianity because it is now categorically made part of
the cycle of the dialectical material timeline where ideas are constantly
replaced with better ideas through social evolution and revolution. The
previous decoding of the book of Revelation makes it possible for the previous
event to occur. The event of moving or shifting Christianity from an absolute
belief system of infallibility into the category of fallibility, makes it a
replaceable part of the machine - general human history and society. Therefore,
the realm of fallibility makes a belief system a product and by-product of the
desires and imagination of mankind. A realm where systems are constantly
replaced by mankind for a better system when new conditions arrive or presents
itself for renewal. Furthermore; the only concept that is infallible is a
natural, evolutionary, and a universal concept. This concept which surpasses
any subjective 'religion' is called objective morality.

The ultimate
observation arrives: the book of Revelation; written by John, is rather a
natural book introducing into the human material dialectical timeline, a
non-violent social 'revolution' propagated through the minds of various
individuals. The non-violent revolution, Christianity, has outlived its Jewish
messianic counterparts to simply replace an outdated locally tribal and Judaic
belief system. The old tribal system was replaced with something better like
the introduction of the 'universal tribe',i.e. universi. However; the
new revolutionary Pauline system did not directly address the problem of evil
but rather masked it, or attempt to solve it, with a humanly flawed 'divine
command'.

The issue concerning morality
was addressed by Immanuel Kant in several of his books or treatises. His
theories has proven that morality in general is objective. For example, 'Thou
shall not Kill or murder' is a universal code among humanity despite cultural
differences. Even though; several scholars later, including Rachels, developed
an idea that each culture varies in their understanding of moral codes, i.e.
subjective morality. Despite these differences each culture had a 'Law giver'
who tried to achieve or pursue objective morality within their unique cultural
environment. Therefore, proving that morality is objective when introduced into
the dialectic material timeline. The previous observation presents the current
issue facing philosophical scholars. The issue of where objective morality
derives from is debated constantly but solved through social evolution.
Therefore, the only immaterial idea that is infallible is objective morality
observed through social and biological evolution. Furthermore, the only
fallible ideas are: 1) 'religion', 2) cultural based laws and, 3) proven flawed
economic theories. This process naturally happens through social evolution when
these immaterial ideas are evaluated and eventually discarded through
refutation. The prime example of this are old religions which are no longer
followed. For example, the religion by the name of Zoroastrianism was slowly
abandoned by the Persian people over several years. This historical example is
not an anomaly but rather a historical trend. Another obvious example is the
complete disappearance of the ancient Egyptian religions. The eventual
evolution happens because 'religion' in general is based on subjective
morality. Paul's Christian 'religion' is also based on subjective morality.
There are variables within Christianity which are categorically proven to be
based on objective morality because these flaws or factors were already shared
among pre-Abrahamic tribes and other belief systems.

Therefore, Paul's
ideas are based on a cultural bias and based on a flawed subjective morality.
There are several evidences or examples to prove this hypothesis. First, the
issue of slavery within the New Testament canon would be presented in two
parts: directly and indirectly. The evidence is the direct order by Paul to
tell "slaves" to be loyal to masters (Ephesians 6:5-9). The next
evidence is the indirect order expressed by Paul in the letter to Philemon,
which is an example of condoning slavery, where he does not say emphatically to
stop the practice. This is primarily troubling for anyone who is following the
current moral codes. The practice of slavery is even mentioned by the gospel
writers in Matthew 18:25 and Luke 12:45-48. It is also reflected in the Old
Testament canon in Deuteronomy 23:15-16. Even if we are to pretend that these
commands and regulations are temporary then why Paul did not openly oppose the
practice of slavery amongst his followers? Another important question arises
concerning the Book of Revelation, why has John did not mention the removal of
slavery? The reason is because John, Paul and the New Testament writers all
expected the return of Jesus to be during their lifetime or two to three
generations afterwards! Which is also another proof of a false prophecy and a
flawed human prediction! The example is given in the Book of Revelation, the
very treatise which predicted not only the physical return of Jesus but also
the termination of the material timeline of history. John, in the Book of
Revelation, commits the same error in Revelation 13:16 by describing
"slaves" receiving the mark of the beast. This example and verse is
an indirect reference to the Roman empire itself. Therefore, identifying Nero
as the man of "666". However, even today at this modern time, it is
now proven that the abhorrence of slavery is a universal moral imperative as
much as 'Thou shall not kill or murder'. This has been proven empirical and
philosophically abhorrent among sentient beings over time. The evolution of
this particular moral code has transformed it into a universal moral imperative
proving the existence of an objective moral code evolving through time.
Therefore, this transformation or social evolution was enacted without the
direct command from God which was clearly missing from Paul's letters to his
followers. Furthermore, the most important question manifests itself, where was
God to tell Paul that slavery is wrong and immoral?

The next evidence
is when Paul tells females or women to be keep silent in the congregation (1st
Corinthians 14:34). These orders despite being minor issues during Paul's era,
have been disregarded by most followers of Christianity today or during the
modern era, proving that the "Law" stated by Paul is not an
expression of a universal objective morality nor deriving from a creator. If
the "Law" stated by Paul in 1st Corinthians was from God, then the
"Law" would have been proven universal and infallible over the course
of human history after Paul's lifetime. In other words, God would have
presented an infallible law which would have never been violated by fallible
human beings. Most importantly, even if not addressed directly then why God did
not correct Paul concerning slavery or females speaking in front of a
congregation? If there was ever a correction by his God, within the New
Testament text, then this correction or command would have proven that his God
existed. Has his God forgot to address to Paul the future fallibility of his
Christian tribe? To include; why has John, in the book of Revelation, did not
address the issue in the litany of "sins" in Revelation 21:8 or in
the beginning addressing the seven churches? Of course, John points out
"Jezebel" or a "Jezebel"(comparing 2nd Kings 9:10 and 2nd
Kings 9:36-37) in addressing the "sin" of the Pergamos congregation
or church in Revelation 2:12-23 but this addresses the "sin" of
eating foods sacrificed to idols. The term "fornication" is either
the problem concerning eating foods sacrificed to idols or the actual act of
fornication or giving loyalty to the Roman Empire or all of the above? In the
previous example, it presents the problem of disagreement between John and Paul
therefore who is receiving the true message from Jesus their God? If they
agreed about women not speaking in front of congregations then why is not the
issue stated by John in the Book of Revelation specifically pointing out this
particular "sin" in Revelation 21:8?

The previous
evidence proves that the New Testament is not from a creator but rather a
reflection of the previous cultural moral codes. It even proves that these
cultural codes derive from the previous Jewish moral codes. The Christian moral
code (and even the Jewish moral code) has in its core some of the general
objective moral codes. However, the objective moral code derives from human
understanding through social biological evolution and not from an infallible
creator. Rather, Paul's directives and even his supposed 'divine command'
derives from a flawed relativistic or subjective moral code. If it is
culturally relativistic then the New Testament writers are not receiving their
commands from a god nor a creator but from their cultural environment.
Therefore, if it is from a cultural environment then the laws or commands are
not from a creator. The very process presented previously is not completed
without further evidence. Let us evaluate the original Ten commandments by
Moses. It is known historically that Moses was influenced, philosophically, by
the actions and belief of a previous pharaoh during his era. The name of this
pharaoh is Akhenaton who instituted the worship of one god or creator - the sun
god of Egypt. Nevertheless, Moses observed the various ancient Egyptian moral
codes but made ten, out of the thirty ancient Egyptian commands, the guidance
of the Jewish tribe. Let us be rational on this subject. If the Law of Moses
was universal and completely infallible then there should be neither redundancy
nor subjective commands. If there are redundancy or repeats and also subjective
commands then Moses never received a 'divine command'. However, there are at least
two clear examples noted: 1) The regulation to follow the Sabbath is subjective
because it does not cover non-Jews. 2) The order not to 'steal' and not to
'covet' or 'desire' your neighbor's property. These two commands, 'steal' and
'covet', are also related with 'love thy neighbor'. The previous is an example
of redundancy.

Paul's reaction to
the above problem was to revise it. The revision forced the idea of Paul's
'universal tribe' through 'grafting'(or adopting) non-Jews stated in Romans
chapter eleven. The revision or change allowed the two previous problems to be
non-factors between the members of the new Pauline tribe. These factors were
the Sabbath day and property related commands instituted by Moses. The Sabbath
day actually was related to working and simply a day of remembrance. The
Sabbath was redefined by the leadership of the Jesus movement (Paul, James and
others) and the property commands were simplified. The problem is that if the
god of Moses was perfect then why institute these commands when they were
intended to be broken in the future? Or is this yet another example of social
evolution?

Another example is
the economic absurdity of Paul's evaluation of an economic observation when he
states in 2nd Thessalonians 3:10 an economic directive. This could be disproven
for obvious historical reasons. For instance, if a company decides to hire or
not hire it is based on market forces and not the individual's willingness to
work. The previous sentence is an observation of the introduction of the
industrial revolution and industrial age where the phenomenon of long
unemployment is observed by an epistemological reality. In other words, based
on empirical data and facts. Furthermore, the transformation of the industrial
revolution shifted the human mass from mostly occupations in the agricultural
realm into industrial occupations. The main question: if the message(s) of Paul,
and the later convenient Millennialist John in the book of Revelation, was
meant to be fulfilled after their generation then why did God omit to mention
the industrial revolution? There is not even a hint of any social
transformation from a mostly agricultural economy into an industrial one. The
economic flaw acted upon by Paul, and other New Testament writers, was their
negation of this universal social transformation. The next example is very
convincing of John's false predictions. Why did John fail to mention the "sin"
of usury? Which was one of the causes that lead to the destruction of the
Temple in B.C. 587 by the Babylonians (Ezekiel chapter eighteen). Why did John
fail to mention the causes of unemployment in the Roman empire? The reason of
the previous observation is based on the fact that the rise of slave labor
contributed to the many riots within the Roman empire because it lead to high
unemployment among the Roman citizenry. Therefore, the composition of
Revelation is based on material issues and self-interest to preserve the
nascent Christian community against the material chaos within the Roman empire.
The writer of the Book of Revelation has clearly employed a political tactic
using 'religious' symbolism. The writer of the Book of Revelation, John, has
employed the 'window of opportunity' tactic and 'the expansion of the scope of
conflict' tool, a political phenomenon noted by E.E. Schattschneider.

Paul's predictions
is all-too-human and exposes his message as a flawed 'divine command'. Clearly,
the omissions of the economic 'divine commands' within the Bible itself is
proof of fallibility. Again, the book of Revelation and the rest of the New
Testament canon failed to mention the importance of forbidding 'usury'.
Furthermore, failed to predict the introduction and invention of the modern
banking system. Of course, the only religious figure to mention such regulation
was "prophet" Muhammad within the Islamic texts. It leads to the
absurdity that Islam is a valid faith, among Christians and Jews, especially
when Muhammad is fairly noted by attempting to apply such regulation -
(Deuteronomy 15:11, Ezekiel 18:5-13, Nehemiah 5:7 and Galatians 2:10). What happened? A
later 'religion' outperformed the Judeo-Christian standard and community?
Muhammad, the Arab social revolutionary, by applying the very regulations which
has been missing among the new tribe(Christian) and old tribe(Jewish) since
after A.D.70 has presented a dilemma. Why has John, the author of the book of
Revelation, omitted such an important regulation? Since the "sin" of
usury contributed to the destruction, according to Ezekiel(Ezekiel chapter
eighteen), of the previous Temple by the Babylonians and then repeated by the
new Babylonians, i.e. the Roman empire (Revelation 18:2 and 18:10). It is obvious,
the book of Revelation is not a book of a divine source but rather the product
of the natural heart and mind. Why has Paul not received a command concerning
the dangers of the modern banking system like something similar in Ezekiel
18:5-13? The reason is because Paul predicted falsely the physical return of
Jesus before the Temple's destruction by the Romans. The next false prediction
was then formed after the execution of Paul by the Romans and Nero - The Book
of Revelation. Therefore, John also predicted falsely the physical return of
Jesus after the Roman's empire destruction of the Temple in A.D.70. These are
the facts: Usury is necessary for the capitalist profit system to survive and
this has been proven through social evolution. The imposition of usury or
financial interest allows the introduction of privatization in the modern era
of financial exchanges and economics. Therefore, all three faiths: Judaism,
Christianity and Islam are proven flawed and fallible. The point is that the
transformation of society from a mostly agricultural economy into an industrial
one was complimented with the growth of the "usury" or financial
interest system.

Another example is
the term: "Amen" which is shared with the followers of Islam(opening
prayers in Islam). This term is rooted within the ancient 'religion' of the
ancient Egyptians especially among the followers of pharaohs Akhenaton and
Amenhotep. In the ancient Egyptian religion, the term "amen", means
the "concealed one". This is explained in depth, on page 85, by the
scholar - Anthony T. Browder - in his book Exploding the myths Volume 1:
Nile Valley contributions to Civilization. Moses then repeated this pattern
of worship stated in Deuteronomy chapter 27:15-26 by also mentioning the term
"amen" in a ceremonial mass proclamation after repeating the moral
codes.

The previous various examples
proves the absurdity of the 'divine command' within the New Testament canon.
Furthermore, the physical return of Jesus during Paul's or John's generation is
also proven to be false by the very words of Paul himself (1st Corinthians
7:26-29).

Another evidence is the attempt by James, the supposed half-brother
of Jesus, to state in his own manner that the Christian subjective morality is
infallible. However, by mixing obviously the generally observed and derived
objective morality or the mixing of the two is actually evidence that the words
within his book and the rest of the New Testament are not the actual words of
God but a human manifesto. If we read through the book of James, a book
attributed to his authorship, we could see he recognized an objective moral
code (James 2:8, 2:10-12) which was derived from the texts of Moses. Moses
derived his codes from the Egyptian religious moral codes which contains at least
thirty moral codes. James; through the book of James attributed to him, added specific Christian
subjective moral codes (James 2:12, 2:17-20), which are products of his social
environment, along with the objective moral codes mentioned previously. It is
obvious, Christianity as a 'religion', survived based on its non-violent
emphasis and an attachment to the universal and naturally derived objective
moral codes. However, is this the case? After the collapse of the Roman Empire,
the Christian community took the reigns of leadership. The Christian leadership
then went aggressive to eliminate the 'Gnostic' followers and other minorities. The pursuit to eliminate and purge out certain elements counters the initial message of the founders of the said belief system. Is it moral or ethical to "purge" or eliminate certain segments of the previous peaceful movement which have a different "gospel"? The previous particular case in history where the oppressed becomes the oppressors as is explained through the words of the recent modern existentialist Albert Camus in his book - The Rebel - is evident in the case of Christianity. The behaviour of the movement proves, even in this case, that Christianity is a natural product of human beings rather than a supernatural creation.

The attainment or
pursuit of objective morality is the pursuit of happiness. Furthermore,
morality is objective and it does not derive from a creator. Rather; it is
based on the actions and understanding of sentient beings,through natural
biological altruism, by observing the prime goal of ultimate justice and
happiness,i.e. objective morality.

The subject of 'Rule Utilitarianism' and 'Act Utilitarianism' comes up when doubtful circumstances arises concerning the manifestation of 'evil' in society. The examples will be given and then a response:

"where do you put your money? Apart from ethical considerations (do you lend to a liquor store that provides good income to a family, do you invest in a business that is run by a polygamist, and will feed all his wives and children etc. etc.) one could also take a more economic view: what will help a country grow?"

The response: The issue of each example could be answered to the current laws within each economic case. If there are no stated laws concerning each case than it is permissible because "evil" has not been enacted by the one giving money because the individual has not violated any standing law within that particular society. The formation of a law is a common agreement between the ruled and the ruler(s) of a society. In other words, an agreement between the acting agent(individual) and reacting agents(community or society). If there is a standing law against giving money to any circumstance or examples given above then it violates the utilitarian ethic.

There are also cases which were not imagined and this is where Immanuel Kant's observation comes into the picture. The categorical imperative has been summarized earlier as:"Good producing Good". However, it is really a statement suggesting that morality is absolutely objective. The statement by Immanuel Kant is stating that individuals knows what is right and wrong without knowledge of agreed upon laws. For instance; the individuals(moral acting agents) who oppose unjust current laws, agreed upon laws, are following and recognizing the feeling of Kant's absolutely objective morality. There are hints within Kant's writings which suggest that these "feelings" of knowing absolute objective morality derive from a supposed supernatural source. However, as will be proven these "feelings" are actually derived from biological evolution and therefore social environments. Morality is not absolutely objective because it will be proven not to be so.

Therefore, an extension of the utilitarian ethic has already been elaborated by current utilitarian philosophers to include the "feelings" of natural rights expressed through Immanuel Kant's categorical and hypothetical imperatives.